NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book:I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Saturday, March 11, 2017

Process of Elimination

A psychopathic pedophile would have had no reason to write a ransom note. Someone intending to kidnap JonBenet would have prepared his ransom note in advance, not written it on paper from a notepad he happened to find in the house. And he would actually have kidnapped his victim. Someone out to get John Ramsey would have had no reason to write a ransom note, and if he'd wanted to leave a note would have prepared it in advance. Someone intending to frame the Ramseys would have attempted to forge John or Patsy's hand, but none of the many "experts" who've examined the note has ever suggested it was a forgery. Someone entering the house via the basement window would have left clear signs of his presence there, yet there was no sign anyone had even lifted the grate over the window well or passed through the narrow window sill. And someone with a key would have had no reason to break the basement window, displace debris from the well onto the basement floor or position a suitcase under that window. Thus no intruder theory makes sense.

Patsy Ramsey had no motive to intentionally murder the daughter she doted on so intensely. If she struck her daughter accidentally or in a spontaneous fit of rage, there would have been no reason for her not to immediately call 911, claiming she fell by accident and struck her head. The same would be true if, as has sometimes been speculated, she and John were having a spat, someone struck a blow and JonBenet got caught in the middle. This could still have been reported as an accident. Since the head blow resulted in no external injuries and, according to the judgement of most forensic specialists, she would still have been breathing, there would have been no reason not to call for help and certainly no reason to finish her off by strangling her.

If Patsy had attempted to stage a kidnapping by writing a phony "ransom" note, she would not have called 911 so early the following morning, knowing the body of her victim was still in the house, thus negating the entire point of her staged kidnapping.

If John Ramsey knew that his wife had killed his child, by accident or whatever other reason, it's very hard to understand why he would have decided to support her in an effort to cover up the truth. And if Patsy had known that John had killed her, then once again it's impossible to understand why she would have decided to cover for him instead of leaving the house immediately, reporting him, and suing him for every penny he owned. Moreover, if the two of them were involved in a conspiracy they could easily have agreed on a story to tell and there would have been no reason to delay full cooperation with the police.

Thus the widely held theory that Patsy Ramsey killed her daughter makes little sense. Nor is there any reason to believe she was involved in the plan to stage a kidnapping nor, indeed, in any aspect of the crime.

If Burke Ramsey had struck his sister in a rage over pineapple fueled by sibling rivalry, or any other motive, then, once again, there would have been no reason for his parents to stage a kidnapping rather than immediately calling 911 to report an accident. Once again, as stated above, since the head blow resulted in no external injuries and, according to the judgement of most forensic specialists, she would still have been breathing, there would have been no reason not to call for help and certainly no reason for either parent to penetrate her vagina and finish her off by strangling her. And if one might want to assume that Burke is the one who penetrated her vagina and constructed the "garrote" that strangled her, then it's impossible to believe his parents would have gone to such great lengths and taken such a huge risk to protect the person who had so violently assaulted their own dearly beloved child, even if it were their own son. Under such circumstances, John Ramsey, an experienced businessman, would have immediately called his lawyer - and learned that Burke could not have been charged with murder in any case, as he was too young to formulate intent. When we add to the above, the extreme unlikelihood that a frail nine year old boy who had expressed no interest in girls and had no history of violence would be capable of sexually assaulting and strangling his little sister, it becomes very hard indeed to argue for Burke as the killer. Indeed, there is NO evidence he was involved in any way -- though it's possible he knows more about what happened then he's ever admitted publicly.

Which leaves us, by process of elimination, with only one remaining suspect: John Ramsey. If, as suggested by practically every expert who has ever reviewed the forensic evidence, JonBenet had been sexually molested in the past, then the most likely candidate by far would be her father. And if this were indeed the case, then John's motive would not be difficult to discern: the need to forever silence someone who could have destroyed him by revealing what he'd been up to. Once deciding that he had no choice but to kill her, John could have struck her over the head, thus "mercifully" sparing her any pain. Though the reason for the use of the garrote-like device is not clear, it could have been part of an erotic fantasy, or else possibly an attempt to stage an assault by a violent intruder. If John had murdered his daughter there would certainly have been no reason for him to share this information with his wife, so the notion that the two of them were "in it together" makes little sense. In this light, the reason for the "ransom" note becomes clear. It was written, in part, to frighten Patsy into not calling the police, thus buying time for him to dump the body of his little victim under cover of darkness the following night. It was written also to provide him with an alibi if his car had been spotted near the location where the body would later be found -- he could claim he'd been delivering the ransom. There are of course many questions that arise regarding what sort of plan John had in mind, and how he could have carried it out, but it's possible to account for literally all such questions, as has been demonstrated on this blog.

[Oh, and in case you're wondering why John could not have called 911 right away and reported the head blow as an accident: 1. he'd have needed to explain why he'd been up with JonBenet in the middle of the night; 2. he'd have needed to explain the injuries he'd inflicted on her vagina during the sexual assault that most likely preceded the head blow; 3. he might have noticed the blow was not fatal, as she'd still been breathing, and been concerned that she might be revived to reveal what had happened.]

An intruder can be eliminated for the reasons provided above. Patsy Ramsey can be eliminated for the reasons provided above. Burke Ramsey can be eliminated for the reasons provided above. John Ramsey cannot be eliminated.

222 comments:

Every argument you made about Patsy's lack of motive could be applied to John too. He doted on JonBenet as well. There is ZERO evidence that he ever sexually molested JonBenet or anybody else ever. There isn't even any conclusive evidence that JonBenet had any prior sexual abuse. I see several holes in your otherwise reasonable analysis. As I mentioned before, it makes no sense that John would break the basement window, displace debris from the well onto the basement floor and position a suitcase under that window in order to stage a break-in and then immediately subvert his own staging by telling the police that he broke the window himself months earlier. He was either staging a break-in or he wasn't. And Patsy corroborated his having broken the window too. The "gaslighting" explanation is just a hand-wave as there is no evidence that Patsy was ever gaslighted about anything else. Another hole is the bald assumption that there was ever a plan to dump JonBenet's body and that the ransom note wasn't just an attempt to divert the attention of the police towards someone outside the family. The note implicates a third party. The absence of a note would leave all the suspicion on the family. To have a note at all, it has to be a ransom note. Another hole is explaining Patsy's ability that morning to ever have called 911 if John's plans depended on her not to. This would have us believe that he was cunning enough to get away with long-term molestation of his daughter, murdering her while her mother slept, a staging job that fooled the police and the CBI, and writing a long ransom note that fooled handwriting examiners, but he was not cunning enough to figure out a way to keep Patsy from calling 911, or even to keep her from going downstairs first. There is no evidence beyond speculation that John Ramsey had any motive to kill his daughter or any evidence that he did kill his daughter.

Well, isn't it clear that he was? Neither the housekeeper or her husband confirmed the story about that window being broken or Linda helping Patsy clean up any glass. In fact Linda accused her of lying about that incident. If the edges of the glass had been encrusted with months worth of dust and dirt, why would the police have bothered to question John about that window at some length, both in 1997 and 1998? Why would they have asked whether the window had ever been repaired? And why is it that neither John nor Patsy could recall whether or not it had been repaired? Not to mention John's feeble story about how he lost or misplaced his keys, his uncertainty about whether or not he took a cab home, his inability to explain why he didn't get a key from his neighbor, etc.

Even if you want to argue that Patsy deliberately lied to confirm his story, that does not mean that story is gospel truth. And if John were staging a break in at that window, doesn't that imply his involvement in this crime? And since we can rule Patsy and Burke out, then doesn't that tell us he must have been the one that killed his daughter? Who else could have done it?

"Well, that hinges on your assumption that there was a plan to dump JonBenet's body somewhere."

No assumptions required - the ransom note tells us KIDNAPPING was being staged. A kidnapping requires the victim to be removed from her home. The person who authored that note is not the person who called 911.

"And your reason for ruling out an intruder depends on assuming that if an intruder killed JonBenet he had to have been the one who broke the basement window and had to have come in that way."

You must not have read the earlier posts on this blog, if you had, you'd know there is a wealth of evidence that rules out an intruder, the least of them being the broken window.

I agree that a kidnapping requires the victim to be removed from her home. But a *staged* ransom note does not. The purpose of staging is to misdirect the investigators.

I've read most of the earlier posts, but it's certainly possible that I missed the wealth of evidence that rules out an intruder. Can you summarize? I was responding specifically to how Doc ruled out an intruder in this particular post.

"I think you believe Patsy accidentally shoved JB and that the scuffle happened in JB's room (since you mentioned the toilet lid previously). What do you think precipitated the accident - a verbal disagreement of some sort or anger over bed wetting (sheets were not wet)."

JonBenet's bedroom was a complete mess. This evidence was hidden for a long time from the general public. There is more evidence that is yet to be disclosed that I am confident would change a lot of people's minds about this case.

It certainly appears that some type of altercation took place in JonBenet's bedroom. Turned over trophies and tiaras scattered on the floor suggest that this quarrel was most likely with Patsy. Both had already had two disagreements about Christmas attire. JonBenet did not like her Christmas gift doll from Patsy. So there is evidence that there was friction between them. Perhaps more than anyone outside the Ramsey home realized. We can speculate forever on what precipitated the accident. A disagreement might have developed while Patsy was wiping her but not necessarily had anything to do with anger over bedwetting/soiling.

The conversations that I have had with Thomas and Ressler convinced me that JonBenet and Patsy had not been getting along for an extended period of time. From what I have learned Patsy was putting a lot of pressure on JonBenet to not only be involved in a variety of things but to be the best at everything. It is not a good idea for a child of JonBenet's age to handle such a daunting workload with tremendously high expectations. Sooner or later the child will be resentful and test their boundaries with the overbearing parent.

JonBenet's rebellion began when she quit her violin (which was not received well) and protested to play more with friends. Patsy, however, would not relent. She was determined to experience as much success with JonBenet as possible in case her cancer returned. Unfortunately, this initially sweet gesture turned into an obsession that boiled out of control. The closer Patsy got to JonBenet the more she pushed her away.

The book found in the Ramsey home, "The Hurried Child - Growing Up Too Fast" I steadfastly believe was meant to help JonBenet, not Burke. I also believe the fecal matter and feces belonged to JonBenet instead Burke. Perhaps another attempt by JonBenet to express her frustrations toward Patsy.

JonBenet once confided to a friend that her trophies and awards should really belong to her mother. That was a very telling statement. I think the regression in potty training and bed wetting/soiling was a result of immense stress. JonBenet struggled with it when Patsy was being treated for cancer. The struggles returned when Patsy regained her strength while in remission thus gradually becoming too demanding.

I have not ruled out the possible effects that the experimental treatments Patsy underwent coupled with her hysterectomy might have had on her mental state. Keep in mind, since Patsy had ovarian cancer, a complete hysterectomy was conducted which entailed not only the removal of the uterus but also the Fallopian tubes and ovaries. This type of procedure can have drastic effects on a female's personality.

With regards to JonBenet's bedsheets, Detective Trujillo relayed to Steve Thomas that the sheet reeked of urine although it may have well been dry by the time it was first inspected.

Thanks for your response. I know you have carefully thought this case out long and hard, and taken copious notes.

But did the accident lead to brutal strangulation - by mom? You have ruled out prior abuse of a sexual nature in favor of too-vigorous and rough wiping so we won't go there. But the strangling with a cord - at the hands of Patsy?

The best way to convince John or the police that an intruder was responsible for JonBenet's death was to stage a sexually motivated crime. A garrote was administered to imply that a sexual device was used. The paint brush was inserted to stage rape.

Sensing that the police might try to place blame on John or Burke, Patsy attempted to create a more tangible criminal by authoring a ransom note. She strategically mentioned no warnings about contacting authorities until page two. Patsy stated she only read the first few lines before calling out to John, giving herself a valid excuse to call 911 and friends, but also to explain why the kidnappers decided to kill JonBenet since she unknowingly ignored their instructions.

It is important to keep in mind that John had already lost one daughter due to an accident. How was Patsy going to explain to John that she was responsible for yet another death of one of his daughters? John knew they were not getting along. Patsy probably assumed he could them arguing right before the accident. Patsy had to create a convincing criminal no matter how suspicious it might look. She was desperate to do anything she had to do to the body to convince John that she could not possibly have been responsible.

"There is more evidence that is yet to be disclosed that I am confident would change a lot of people's minds about this case."

Are you privy to said evidence? If so, could you please post it here for us to see?

"Both had already had two disagreements about Christmas attire. JonBenet did not like her Christmas gift doll from Patsy. So there is evidence that there was friction between them. Perhaps more than anyone outside the Ramsey home realized."

Oh, please. An unappreciated gift and a common argument over what a child is going to wear leads to GARROTING your much loved daughter to death?!

" Patsy, however, would not relent. She was determined to experience as much success with JonBenet as possible in case her cancer returned. Unfortunately, this initially sweet gesture turned into an obsession that boiled out of control. The closer Patsy got to JonBenet the more she pushed her away."

Is this merely your opinion? Because, in actual fact, people who knew the family said the opposite - that in the weeks/months preceding JonBenet's death, she had grown increasingly "clingy" to her mother. An absolute contradiction to your claims.

"I think the regression in potty training and bed wetting/soiling was a result of immense stress."

It is also a classic symptom of sexual abuse. Couple that with the fact we have physical evidence that JB was sexually assaulted, and I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on here.

"Keep in mind, since Patsy had ovarian cancer, a complete hysterectomy was conducted which entailed not only the removal of the uterus but also the Fallopian tubes and ovaries. This type of procedure can have drastic effects on a female's personality."

I was seven years old - a year older than JB - when my mother underwent a complete hysterectomy. I remember my mother lamenting she could no longer maintain her svelte physique and hot flashes became an issue, but I don't recall a time when my mother was ever close to smashing my skull in with a toilet seat.....

"How was Patsy going to explain to John that she was responsible for yet another death of one of his daughters?"

She wouldn't have been responsible for JonBenet's death if she'd have called 911 after the head blow, isn't that obvious?! No phony excuses for John, no strangulation, no staging was ever required to begin with! If she wanted to cover for herself, she could have simply told the paramedics she fell and hit her head, abusive parents do it all the time. You're going to have to come up with a much better excuse as to why Patsy violently murdered her daughter, and none of them should include an "accident", because the garroting took premeditation and intent - whoever strangled JB wanted her DEAD. Did Patsy really want her beloved child - the one you claim was an extension of herself, the one she had big plans for - dead? That doesn't fit with everything else you've said about Patsy, Hercule. Your theory is full of contradictions.

I'm sorry, Hercule - aside from it being a preposterous scenario - there's really no evidence to support this theory. Line it up, blow by blow (no pun intended) next to Doc's theory, and you'll see why it can't possibly ever work.

Do you recall if your mom was taking HRT after her complete hysterectomy? I don't know if it was ever made public if Patsy was on hormone replacement due to her cancer. But natural or surgical menopause does cause lots of issues, and it most definitely can affect sleep. And sleep issues certainly can cause temperment issues as well.

Imo, this crime took some time and Patsy would have noticed during the night that John was not in bed beside her. Unless she took a heavy sedative. But she was questioned about medication.

Lot's of women wake up in the middle of the night to notice that their husbands or boy friends are not in bed beside them. It's called "taking a leak." And the older the guy gets, the more often this will happen. If Patsy noticed John wasn't there, she'd have assumed he was in the bathroom, would have turned over and gone back to sleep. And when she woke up she probably wouldn't even have remembered, because this sort of thing is so common among older guys.

Depends on how heavy a sleeper she is tho. As many people will sense movement in the bed when another gets out of it, as well as gets back in it. And that would include not just a 150+ lb person, but a cat or a dog (which we know they didn't have in the home). She may have assumed he was using the bathroom. But not returning after a great deal of time, and if she was aware/sensed that he hadn't, she might also assume that perhaps he was ill, not feeling well. I read someone's comment that mentioned that men tend to hear things outside of the house, and women tend to hear things inside of the house better. Everyone's mileage may vary.

The same question applies to so many who believe PDI, and that poor John "woke up an innocent man that morning". Oh, but John took a Melatonin....or two....or more......so he was "zonked", I guess, and never noticed Patsy was missing from the bed. Theirs wasn't a particularly intimate marriage by that point. Perhaps it wasn't uncommon for John to stay in the study until late or either one of them to sleep in a spare bed from time to time, so they both may have gotten used to the other's absence and ceased to take note of it. Sadly, I've been in a relationship like that myself in the past.....it happens. Half the time I was facing away from my partner and would not have even noticed if he was in bed with me or not.

Doesn't apply to this couple. At least according to the statements given to the police. They shared the same bed in the same bedroom per that night. DocG is thinking John had prostate issues in his early 50's at the time.

You make a good argument and have addressed the garrote issue, which for me has always been troubling as I was never able to tie it in. I've always felt that PR wrote that RN--they never could rule her handwriting out completely. The fact that she was wearing the same clothes indicated to me, that she never changed out of them the night before. The ever changing RN story of how it was found, how they read it, didn't read it, touched it, didn't touch it, was telling. The fact that they allowed their son to leave the house without police escort is also suspect.

However, I am not convinced that JR wasn't involved. I find it difficult to believe a parent would break a window to gain access and then NOT have it fixed immediately, especially with two children in the house. I find it odd that JR and PR stayed away from each other that morning, rather than comforting one another. What I find most odd is that neither one of them followed the instructions in the RN and in fact they did the complete opposite of what the RN said to do.

Had it been legitimate they wouldn't have turned their house into Grand Central Station while being watched by that foreign faction who was holding their daughter at that very moment.

I don't know why or how, but I feel they both played a part in the murder...whether accidental or intentional.

Here's another article where Lin Wood says he would like to put those magazines out of business, with the suit the McGraws havehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3684982/Enough-s-time-Dr-Phil-McGraw-lashes-National-Enquirer-lies-wife-Robin-couple-sues-publisher-250-million.html

"What part if any do you believe Burke played that night? Was he awake and listening? Was he talking during the 911 call?"

I do believe Burke woke up when he heard Patsy calling for John. After hearing their frantic voices he would have went downstairs to investigate like most curious children do. The scene he could have stumbled upon was John examining the ransom note while Patsy was talking to the 911 dispatcher. So yes, I do believe his voice was heard in the background.

I am convinced that Burke did hear much of the confrontation between Patsy and JonBenet the night before. Did he hear enough to know what happened? Did he unbeknownst to Patsy see any of the aftermath? There is a good chance that Burke might have shared what he knew with John at some point that morning, which could very well be the reason why John did not console Patsy as they awaited the kidnapper's call.

When this case first broke Hercule, not long after there was a Lifetime movie based on Schiller's book, "Perfect Murder Perfect Town." Knowing that the Ramsey's were not cooperating fully with the police, seeing them on television, seeing Patsy confronted by Steve Thomas on Larry King, reading the tabloids, all of that contributed to my early bias that Patsy must have done it. If you recall the way John was played in the Lifetime movie the word I would use for him would be "hesitant" and "thoughtful" (as in "full of thoughts") when scenes were shown of him in his office, or the day he separates himself from the pack in the house.

I think we on the onehand say J shouldn't have paid so much attention to the CBS Special, but the power of media is undeniable. And the Lifetime movie along with reading the tabloids initially had me think John had nothing to do with it.

So now, for me, reading the many transcripts and observing John on television and in his video depositions with Darnay Hoffman, I do not see an "oblivious" deceived man at the outset, by an irrational out of control wife. I see a careful plodder. It's still possible the pieces of this puzzle are not properly lined up, and there are layers to this case that remain a mystery - who did what, what were the individual parts they played - but one person has managed even to this day to fly under the radar and that's John. And I wonder why that is?

Does anyone have information regarding Doug Stine, Burke's close friend? It's a little peculiar that the Ramsey's stopped at the Stine's on the way home that night to deliver a present to them and John can't remember whether he and JonBenet stayed in the car or he, JonBenet and Burke stayed in the car or Burke went inside since Doug was his good friend. Then the morning of the tragedy Patsy called nearly everyone BUT the Stines over. Yet, it was the Stines the Ramseys lived with for five months after the murder, John gave one of them a job and they followed the Ramsey's to Atlanta.

I also think John's original statement, that he read to JonBenet may have been the accurate one. That the kids were up, both of them. He's amended his statements over and over, but if you look at the state of her room I think it very possible that Burke and JonBenet were playing in her room, that she was not "zonked" out as Patsy repeatedly says and doesn't Burke also originally say she was awake when they arrived home and walked into the house on her own power? Burke is cagey, John changes his story and Patsy is confused.

Unfortunately that link Lil will take her to the same place the one I provided , which is nowhere. So Ms D, try Lil's other link and you may see the books in the righthand margin. You can access them from there.

Doc, though you articulate your arguments very well as always, I have some points to reinforce my belief that Burke caused the head blow and that one (or both) parents covered it up.

First, you claim that if Burke had caused the head blow, JBR would still be breathing and there would be no reason the parents wouldn't call for help. *ASSUMPTION*: Your statement assumes that the parents were around when the head blow happened. It is very plausible that the accident occurred when Burke and JBR were alone. If we use reason, like you like us to on this blog, you'd probably agree that most kids don't run directly to their parents when they think they've done something bad/wrong.

To digress with a personal example, I once shut my brother's swiss army knife on my finger and despite bleeding profusely and not being able to stop blood loss, i.e. knowing I probably needed a doctor or stitches, I refused to go to my mom because I knew I'd get yelled at for playing with my brother's knife in the first place.

If Burke mistakenly whacked his sister with the maglite (or did it maliciously because she annoyed him) and she dropped to the ground and wasn't moving, it's reasonable to assume that he wouldn't immediately run to his parents to tell them what he did. Like any kid, he prob hoped the problem would fix itself, i.e. she would wake/get up. When he waited long enough to realize she was not responsive, it probably occurred to him that perhaps he really hurt her or even possibly killed her. For me, this is exactly where the train track marks come in. An adult who wants to check if someone is ok, will check a pulse, eyeball responsiveness, skin temp etc. It is reasonable that a child, who is likely very scared, will use an instrument/object nearby to prode or poke.

When nothing happens at that point, he panics and knows he has to get an adult. Now, this can be open to debate - he either went and woke up his father or his father discovered him. It makes sense that he would go to John vice Patsy since Patsy had been sick with cancer and probably not as hands-on as John had been. Also, maybe I'm being stereotypical but I'd prob grab my dad over my mom in this scenario knowing that women are weaker and more hysterical in situations like this (I feel like I can say this bc I'm a female, don't shoot me.) For most kids, Dads do the dirty work in the house.

Backtracking a bit to explain why Burke was alone with JBR. Burke admitted to sneaking back downstairs to fix/play with his toy. JBR's pillow was in the kitchen. It is reasonable that JBR took her pillow from her bed and went to go sleep in Burke's room after wetting the bed, as she had been proven to do often. When she found him not there, she went looking for him. That is why her pillow was in the kitchen.

I don't think they had an argument about the pineapple, but clearly JBR had some if it was found in her autopsy in her stomach. This is the second piece of evidence putting her in the kitchen that night (pillow is the first). There are two pieces of evidence for putting Burke in the kitchen that night (fingerprints on the pineapple bowl and tea glass as well as Burke's own admission that he snuck back down. For those that try to say that he could have eaten the pineapple earlier, that can't be true because both parents have denied giving the kids pineapple so it makes sense that Burke made it himself at some point. It is reasonable to assume that when Burke snuck down to play with his toy, he made himself a snack. Its much easier to sneak food when your parents are asleep than to do so in the daytime when they are coming/going in the house.)(continued below) E

Ok so they are both at the kitchen. The half opened christmas presents come into play now. They both snuck downstairs to peek into the wrapped presents. Patsy's lie that she had forgotten what was inside is clearly that - a lie. Adults don't rip into wrapped presents if they want to check whats inside, particularly if they are the ones that spent time to wrap them. An adult, peels back or cuts some of the tape to peek inside and reseals.

Again, sorry for the personal stories but it helps to explain children's behavior. I once hit my sister over the head with a tennis racket when she took my barbie doll and my brother once shot a rubber band in my face when he found out I broke his model airplane. Nothing gets children more riled up then their toys/things being taken/broken/borrowed by their sibling.

It seems perfectly plausible that Burke got upset with JBR ripping into a present, esp one he thought was his, and smacked her with the flashlight.

Second Assumption: That a parent would never garotte their already dead child and vaginally penetrate them to cover up an 'accident' from one of their other children.*ASSUMPTION*: That statement assumes that a parent wouldn't do anything possible to save their child.

Your son accidentally kills your daughter. This is before google. You have no idea in your panicked state late at night, whether or not your son can be liable for the death at his age. You don't call your attorney, you are not dumb and know that phone records can be pulled. Oh and your other daughter has died several years ago in a car crash.

What parent wouldn't do everything in their power to make sure that their son wouldn't go to jail? The daughter is gone, there is nothing you can do to save her. You have to save your son and his life. How many parents have lost two of their children in a lifetime? I would freak out too and do everything possible to save that remaining child.

Yes, even vaginally penetrating the dead child (sorry) with a paintbrush handle, brutally garotting her - ANYTHING to save my son from going to jail, being tried whatever. I would do anything to deflect suspicion that this was an 'accident' and could have been a family member. John has fooled all of you - everyone always says on this blog: "but no family member could EVER do that to their own child". Exactly. Exactly why John went that far. Clearly, he wanted to make sure that everyone thought the same thing. A family member could never possibly do such a brutal thing to one of their own just to cover an accident!

You make a good point that neither Patsy nor John would likely live with the other knowing that one of them was the murderer. Hence, why NEITHER of them are the murderer, and Burke is. One of them just did the cover up and the other one was let in on it later.

Going back to the 911 call - I absolutely agree with Doc that Patsy didn't know when she made that call. John helped Burke, put him to bed, wrote the note. He planned to dump the body - as you point out Doc, the note is written in a way that could completely explain John doing the body dumping/money transfer. He didn't tell Patsy and planned to tell her after he dumped the body. WHY? Well it is reasonable to assume that a doting mother would be highly against leaving her dead daughter's body lying alone in the woods somewhere. And he probably worried whether Patsy would want to call the police or an ambulance etc. John was trying to think reasonably - trying to think of what was best for Burke, not what was most kosher for JBR's body.

As we all know, Patsy foiled John's plan by calling 911 before reading the whole note and heading John's warnings. Now John can't dump the body so he's left to stage during that hour he goes missing.

I think I've basically addressed everything. The 3/6 doctors indicated prior vaginal abuse and 3/6 said no. That is inclusive and can't be pointed to her having for sure been abused before her death. And even if you want to insist on that, there is no reason to rule out Burke "experimenting" on her, particularly if they shared the same room sometimes. Kolar very clearly outlines in his book how young children experiment sexually, it is not uncommon.

To refute the argument that Patsy and John would not have let Burke to be interviewed by the child pyschologist if he was guilty of the headblow - read the facts. The police would have had to take Burke away from the family if they didn't do an interview. That is standard protocol for a murder of a child, the other children are taken from the family. They consented only because they had to - of course, with the odd stipulation that it had to be a child pyschologist and not the police.

I hope this explains where I'm coming from. I'm an avid reader of the blog and respect everyone's opinions even when I don't agree with them. Thank you, E

Hi E. I appreciate your effort to point out my "assumptions" and make a case for the BDI theory. Your posts are interesting and thought provoking, so thank you.

I guess the first response I have is a question: why is it so important for you to pin this on Burke? Why is it so difficult for you to consider John as the one who did it? There is a reason why, in a case of child abuse, the police would be far more likely to suspect a man in his 50's than a 9 year old boy. Statistically the adult male is far more likely to have done such a thing. Yet you seem to presume (as does Kolar) that John is somehow above suspicion. Why is that?

As for my assumption that the parents would have been around when Burke did the deed, you are right. It's possible they weren't around and that Burke decided not to tell them anything. So what do you think he'd have done at that point? I imagine he'd have gone to bed and hoped the whole thing was a bad dream. The parents would get up in the morning and find their dead or dying child. No ransom note. No 911 call to report a kidnapping. Yes that too is an assumption. But exactly how long do you think it would have taken before one or both parents found out? If Burke had told his father right away, then John would have called 911 for help, no? And if Burke had waited and called him later, then what? She would still have been breathing, no? So he would still have called for help, no? And reported it as an accident. She must have fallen down the stairs, or hit her head on the tub.

And why would John have wanted to keep this a secret from Patsy? Siblings fight all the time -- Burke didn't "mean" to hit her. At least he could have said that. So again, I see no reason for launching a bizarre combination of sexual assault by a crazed pedophile AND kidnapping, complete with long, detailed ransom note. None of that adds up, sorry.

If John is ever put on trial for killing his daughter, and he was "only" covering for Burke, then he'd have an excellent opportunity to tell the truth about what happened.

However: If he were to say "I know this looks bad, but actually my 9 year old son assaulted her, not me. I just tried to help him get away with it." I wonder if there were a jury anywhere on earth who'd believe him.

"First, you claim that if Burke had caused the head blow, JBR would still be breathing and there would be no reason the parents wouldn't call for help. *ASSUMPTION*: Your statement assumes that the parents were around when the head blow happened. It is very plausible that the accident occurred when Burke and JBR were alone. If we use reason, like you like us to on this blog, you'd probably agree that most kids don't run directly to their parents when they think they've done something bad/wrong. Your son accidentally kills your daughter. This is before google. You have no idea in your panicked state late at night, whether or not your son can be liable for the death at his age. You don't call your attorney, you are not dumb and know that phone records can be pulled."

E, we KNOW that JB was still breathing when the garrote was tightened around her neck, so your theory doesn't hold up. Burke could have delivered the blow to the head, but if your scenario is to be believed, John found his daughter whilst she was still ALIVE, then inexplicably decided against calling for help, and strangled her to death instead. Why? I can't think of one, good, reason why his first instinct wasn't to call for paramedics upon finding his daughter injured and tell them she fell down the stairs. She was still breathing, E! Burke wasn't going to be charged with murder if John called for help at that point!

Thank you to both Doc G and Mrs D for the responses. You make a good point re if JBR was still breathing after the head blow and while the garotte was being put on. Is this for certain? I thought there was some back and forth about whether or not the garotte was put on before/after she had died? Sourcing would be great, thank you in advance.

From my friend EMT: "When people become unconscious they don't respond to loud sounds or shaking. They may even stop breathing or their pulse may become extremely faint."When I was lifeguarding (omg more personal anecdotes, stop E!) and going thru CPR it used to take me ages to actually locate my partners pulse - its surprisingly difficult to find if you don't know where to look. If the pulse is extremely faint and irregular, I could very well see that it could be missed.

Is it possible that in the panic of realizing that Burke has hit her over the head and she's dropped unconscious that when one (or both) of the parents is finally brought in, they think shes already dead? Just thinking out loud here.

Doc, you're right. I'm not intent on Burke - I do want to believe its John. But I can't "x" him out until I resolve that he absolutely couldn't have been the one. I guess I'm naive to want to think the best of people and want to think it was an accident followed by a desperate parent doing a cover up than a pedophile murdering father with intent :/

Clarification on the breathing will be helpful. Thank you again everyone for their insightful comments. - E

"Is it possible that in the panic of realizing that Burke has hit her over the head and she's dropped unconscious that when one (or both) of the parents is finally brought in, they think shes already dead?"

You have to ask yourself this question, E: if you discovered your child lying unconscious - or, for the sake of argument, possibly dead even - would you tie a garrote around her throat (would the thought of such an act even enter your mind, especially when your thoughts would be focused only on the absolute horror you've just encountered?) in order to protect your OTHER child before doing EVERYTHING possible to ascertain if she was still alive or not? In fact, even if you presumed she was most certainly dead, wouldn't you still call for an ambulance in case she could be revived? This is your child! What parent - outside of The Twilight Zone, perhaps - would say "Oh well. She's dead now, there's nothing we can do about it....let's get to work. Mutilating her vagina, followed by tightening a torture device around her neck and staging a phony kidnapping sounds like a good plan"?! A parent's first instinct is not: "How do we explain this?", it is "WE NEED HELP!" We know she was obviously warm when the garrote was applied, as she hadn't expired yet (even if the person using the garrote wasn't aware of this fact, as BDIs claim) and there surely would have been the sound of air escaping her lungs as the ligature was tightened, so I don't believe for a single second the person who tightened the cord around her neck could have thought for one moment she was already dead. Her limbs would have quite possibly stiffened, gurgling sounds would have occurred - at any rate, there would be definite, physical signs she was still alive once the strangulation began. Therefore, the natural conclusion is that the ligature was used solely for the purpose of causing death. If you have any doubts, take another look at the autopsy photos and see how deeply it was embedded into her neck. Compare the brutality of this act with the "token gesture" of the loosely bound wrists, which was obviously pure staging.....if the garrote was staging also, there is no reason it wouldn't have been applied in the same, restrained manner as the wrist bindings. JonBenet's strangulation was brutal and deliberate: the garrote was fashioned by her murderer who was plotting her death whilst she lay there, still breathing. He could have backed out at any moment, but he chose not to. If the head blow was accidental, her asphyxiation (which was the ultimate cause of death) certainly wasn't. Therefore, I think it's only logical to conclude that her murder never involved any kind of "accident" to begin with.

Her skull fracture couldn't be seen. No one knew how severe it was. Any parent finding their child unconscious, even if her heartbeat is faint or undetectable, calls 911 to give her a chance. That's just parental instinct. This is one of the reasons I never agreed with the Steve Thomas theory either. K

Hi. Congratulations on the blog. I agree that killer was JR.But I have doubts about the fact that PR has stayed all night with the same clothes, it seems she stayed up all night. What do you think about this point?

Let me ask you this question: if you were up all night committing murder, staging a crime scene, moving around a dead body etc., would you be sure to shower and put on fresh clothes before inviting the police to your house? I know I would! John made sure to take a shower.

I feel like many of you make major assumptions as to how normal people would handle these things under normal conditions. This however, is not a normal situation and it's fair to assume that the parents made some irrational/bad decisions that night.

Hi Ms D.Exactly what I think, that Patsy did not touch the dead body, but John did the work and took a shower. But that does not mean that Patsy did not know. The fact that she did not change her clothes is a little strange to me.

What's also strange is that Patsy had her makeup and hair done when the first officer arrived on the scene.

Patsy said she woke up around 5:30 without an alarm. To make this simple, let's just say she woke up at 5:30 on the dot. She then gets dressed, puts on her makeup, does her hair, goes downstairs, reads the note, freaks and out and runs upstairs to look in JonBenet's room, let's John read the note, and then decides to call the police at exactly 5:52am; ALL of that within 22 minutes??? No way, no how.

On a morning she had a plane to catch and time was extremely limited, I believe Patsy could have put on a bit of make up and ran a comb through her hair in twenty minutes. As for the officer who claimed Patsy's make up was "perfect" - just how perfect could it have been when, by their own account, Patsy was "hysterically wailing" all morning? I'd like to see any woman manage to keep her make up fresh after crying a bucket load of tears.....or do you believe Patsy never shed one, single, real tear for her daughter after murdering her?

It was the *first* officer, the responding officer at the scene, that noticed the fresh makeup like Gumshoe posted. No one is disputing that tears happened later or that statements made on record by those present are all lying.

Even Burke didn't say his mother was crying that morning, just 'going psycho' before the police arrived.

But she would have cried during the night, and in the early hours, after murdering JB, diamondlil, which would have washed off any trace of the make up she had on from the night before. There'd have been - literally - blood, sweat and tears involved in the night's activities, there's no way Patsy could have remained so pristine if she'd committed murder. Unless she showered and reapplied her make up before calling 911....in which case, she would have been sure to change her clothes first. If she was still wearing the same clothes and her hair and make up were disheveled, THEN I'd entertain the notion she'd perhaps been up all night!

You two apparently believe the responding officer was lying in his reports about her wearing makeup, fresh or not. Some people, and yes, that includes men, can be observant about makeup on a woman's face and if it appears to be freshly done, or slept in, or faded. Why bother to read anything that comes from law enforcement if you don't find anything they said or observed to be credible?

I suppose just try to find any photographs from that day to determine if she applied mascara or not. I am one that does wear some amount of makeup every day but not always mascara now. But yes, when I cry it will effect my makeup. There also wasn't any "blood, sweat or tears" found on the ransom letter, yet both parents claimed to have read parts of it. I don't know what all Patsy had to do with pre- and post murder, but I do believe that the grand jury was given enough evidence after 13 months to come to a better determination than any one here can determine.

More case folklore. No one ever looked for blood or sweat or tear stains on the ransom note. That's ridiculous. What was observed was not a lack of "tears" as in drops of liquid flowing from the eyes, but a lack of *tears*, as in the tearing of paper. It was noted that the document was in pristine condition, with no folds or tears in its fabric.

This misreading of the word "tears" then led to all sorts of absurd speculation regarding various reasons why, if Patsy read the note, it would not have been covered in her tears. And once this sort of ridiculous meme gets tossed out into the Internet-o-sphere it keeps cropping up over and over.

As for Patsy's makeup, she said she applied fresh makeup before going down the stairs and finding the ransom note. If she'd been up all night her makeup would have been a mess.

I really don't have much else to add to this blog anymore as I am very set in my theory, but I did just watch the "What Really Happened" JB episode and noticed something. When Larry King is interviewing John and Patsy he asks them who was eliminated by the handwriting sample and John awkwardly says "well I was..." and looks over at Patsy. Patsy then says something about getting a 4.5 out of 5 which was good and you can clearly see John mouth the exact words that Patsy says. This is the 2nd time I have noticed John mouthing the exact same words out of Patsy's mouth. The JDI will say "well yea, he coached her" whereas I think it shows John and Patsy planned everything that they discussed and even probably had a script to certain questions. It furthers my theory that there is no question Patsy was absolutely aware and involved in what happened that night. I'll look for comments on this post, but otherwise its been fun everybody and good luck to those of you still looking for answers.

Exactly!!! It's also why it took them four months before they sat down separately for an actual interview with police.

If Patsy wasn't involved, she would be chomping at the bit to sit down with police to find out who murdered her daughter. It's what ANY innocent person would do. If John was convincing her not to, coupled with the fake story about breaking the window, and the alleged sexual abuse, Patsy would put it all together that John was the killer. She was not a stupid person.

Gumshoe - Absolutely! I have to hear about how 2 loving parents wouldn't cover for Burke. Well, then how do they explain a loving mother not being cooperative whatsoever with police. Not seeming concerned about the welfare of her son with a murderer on the loose, etc. I am truly at piece with this case and just wish another case peaked my interest to focus on. Good luck to you!

Has anyone read "The Day After Christmas" series? After reading snippets from the books using the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon (thanks, Inq.) and reading the reviews, it looks like they might include Doug Stine in their theory (alongside BR.) I'm just curious if anyone has read the books and can give me a quick overview of why they think DS might have been involved. I can't think of anything that would lead someone to believe DS played a role in JB's murder.

They also state: "A shard of wood found on Jonbenet's body also matched a baseball bat hidden in the bushes outside." Has anyone ever heard this before?

I have not HKH but I think several on topix have, as I believe that is where I first found mention of the trilogies last year. There has been big discussion of young Doug on topix as well. Hoping someone that has read the authors' books will post here.

I read all I was able to read from amazon - Craven Silence (trilogy); The Day After Christmas (trilogy) and Sequin Star book 1. What I will say is it is really well done. I'm going to purchase Craven Silence first. I found this article which is a summary:

Thanks, lil and Inq. I signed up for a free trial of Kindle Unlimited and started reading the 3rd "The Day After Christmas" book. I've only read about 30% of it so far, but thus far, there is nothing new.

I do have to say that I get the feeling the author is not a parent. He makes some sweeping statements that I really disagree with. He thinks JB should have been perfectly capable of wiping herself by age three, and responds, "WTF" to PR thinking it was normal that JB still needed help at age six. While six may be on the older end of the spectrum of kids who still need help, it's not unheard of. I certainly did not trust my kids to completely wipe themselves after pooping at age three.

He also says that kids with toileting issues, and kids who don't flush the toilet, are the products of uncaring parents. While I do think it's possible that JB's bed-wetting could have been in response to sexual abuse, it's ludicrous to say that all children with toileting issues are not cared for. My son wet the bed until age six. He also had stool withholding issues. It was not due to abuse nor a lack of caring. None of the solutions proposed by our pediatrician, a child psychiatrist and a specialist at a world renowned hospital worked. He finally grew out of it. It just irks me when someone assumes that because a child exhibits certain unfavorable behavior, bad parenting is to blame.

off topic - for anyone here that followed the Peterson East trial, who was the bisexual author that was found guilty of bludgeoning his second wife in the stairwell. Last month he took the Alford plea during the re-trial. This article from last week has his attorneys and Mike saying that the real murderer was an owl!http://www.wral.com/-owl-theory-flies-again-in-mike-peterson-case/16574937/

Indeed! The original trial also had spider webs discussed, Dr Henry Lee, a "blow poke" for a fireplace, quite an amazing female prosecutor, online gay escorts, a previous victim also found dead involving stairs.

That despicable Michael Peterson! "The Staircase" was on Sundance last year I think and although pro-Peterson I don't think anyone was fooled. Dr. Henry Lee. Again. What was really interesting was the blowpoke was missing from the fireplace but a tip led Peterson's lawyers to another blowpoke on his property, covered in old cobwebs such that Peterson could say a blowpoke did not cause the unusual wounds and came up with his "owl did it" theory. He also said she was drunk and had too many pills. Dr. Lee made an ass of himself however when he testified that all of the blood splatter which went all the way up the wall was from Mrs. Peterson coughing up blood.

An Alford Plea is a guilty plea entered while maintaing one's innocence, acknowledging that the prosecution has enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendants enter Alford Pleas to take advantage of a plea deal from the prosecution. In the actual Alford case in 1970, the defendant avoided the death penalty by pleading to the lesser charge of second degree murder, which carried a maximum sentence of thirty years to life.

This is for Mike G, who asked about a "mutual" motion to dismiss on the prior thread, with apologies for boring the rest of you:

Yes, there is such a thing. It's called a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice, which means that opposing parties agree in writing to dismiss the pending lawsuit, usually because they have reached a settlement. "With Prejudice" means the plaintiff is barred from re-filing at a later date.

Well thought out and said, Doc! Its posts like this one of yours -- which reveal to us again your brilliant writing ability and your in-depth knowledge of this case -- that keep me forever hooked to this blog.

Thanks for the link, lil. Reading there reminds me of why I gave up on the forums and decided to start my own blog. A long long time ago most of these people convinced themselves that Patsy was involved and that "the Ramseys" were responsible for the death of their daughter. It's called "mind set." And once someone makes up his or her mind it's awfully difficult to convince them otherwise.

It's all too easy to nitpick over problematic details -- and all too easy to play the role of amateur profiler, convincing yourself that you have the ability to distinguish truth from lies or sincerity from acting. Meanwhile this case has gone nowhere for over 20 years because so many following the case refuse to remove their blinders and consider the big picture.

I may be right and I may be wrong, but give me credit for considering ALL the evidence.

Doc, I do love the way you present your theory, although I disagree on a number of your points. That being said, I came into this case knowing virtually nothing. I was looking forward to figuring out who I thought did it as I had no preconceived notions. I've read book after book and blog after blog, and have concluded that every theory has major hurdles to overcome and questions each one can't explain. A part of me feels that the truth could be a theory no one has even considered, and one that I certainly don't have an answer to either.

I still contend that Burke was responsible. I suspect that the parents likely knew about some sort of inappropriate sexual behavior that Burke displayed towards JBR. All of that was grounds for the cover-up.

I have even considered a hybrid solution where John was sexually abusing her but Burke was responsible for the head blow. This would have blown John's cover too and explains the staging around the sexual assault.

To me, if you can allow yourself to believe that an almost 10 year old boy was capable of this, which history proves they are, then it explains all of the bizarre behavior by the parents, including their lack of cooperation with police and willingness to let Burke leave their sight that morning. It also explains why they were so adamant about lying to police that JBR was put right to bed that night and that Burke slept the entire morning until about 7:00, despite a lot of people and commotion at the house. Keep in mind Barbara Fernie told officers that she found it odd Burke was asleep the entire time since he was an early riser like her child and typically got up around 5:30 every morning.

"It's all too easy to nitpick over problematic details -- and all too easy to play the role of amateur profiler, convincing yourself that you have the ability to distinguish truth from lies or sincerity from acting. Meanwhile this case has gone nowhere for over 20 years because so many following the case refuse to remove their blinders and consider the big picture."

Indeed, Doc.....and that is why this is the only forum related to this particular crime that I comment on. I sometimes read through comments on other sites and the confirmation bias ASTOUNDS me. The mental gymnastics these people go through in order to remain faithful to their theory is frustrating to the point where I feel like slamming my computer screen shut. So, for the sake of my own sanity, I now try to avoid these sites as much as possible.

"I have even considered a hybrid solution where John was sexually abusing her but Burke was responsible for the head blow. This would have blown John's cover too and explains the staging around the sexual assault."

Why does there need to be a "hybrid solution" when the staging makes perfect sense if John acted alone? Why complicate matters and involve more people when the simplest explanation in this case (in most cases) actually makes the most sense?

"To me, if you can allow yourself to believe that an almost 10 year old boy was capable of this, which history proves they are..."

You keep failing to mention the part where the parents strangle their child to death in order to cover for the other child. How many times has history proven this is a common occurrence, that two loving parents make a choice to save one child whilst sacrificing the other? BDIs act as though Burke struck her in the head, the parents wrote a note to misdirect the cops, THE END. Look at the TOTALITY of the evidence and you'll find that what occurs following the head blow just doesn't make sense on any level if we're to believe BDI.

"It explains all of the bizarre behavior by the parents, including their lack of cooperation with police and willingness to let Burke leave their sight that morning."

Parents who went to such EXTRAORDINARY measures in order to cover for a child who just murdered his sister would just let him waltz on out of the house, free to talk to anyone about the previous night's homicidal activities? I highly doubt it.

"It also explains why they were so adamant about lying to police that JBR was put right to bed that night and that Burke slept the entire morning until about 7:00, despite a lot of people and commotion at the house. Keep in mind Barbara Fernie told officers that she found it odd Burke was asleep the entire time since he was an early riser like her child and typically got up around 5:30 every morning."

First of all, Burke admitted he wasn't asleep, he was only pretending because he was scared. Secondly, those lies would just as easily support the JDI theory. It was *John* who lied about reading/not reading to the children. It was *John* who said he carried JB to bed after Burke had said she walked up the stairs to her bedroom. It was *John* who said he took a melatonin.....then changed it to "two" just in case anyone was doubting he'd slept through the night. It was *John* who disappeared for 90 minutes that morning, upon which certain elements of the crime scene were inexplicably altered (photographic evidence of this - and Patsy never left anyone's sight, so John is the ONLY person who could have been doing the staging. One would think he and Patsy would have done this staging BEFORE calling the police, don't you think? Which means that John was doing this staging WITHOUT Patsy's knowledge, and that it was something he didn't know he'd need to do previous to the 911 call. To me, that virtually proves Patsy wasn't involved - If she was, the staging would clearly have been taken care of before the call - how more obvious can it be?!)

"It's all too easy to nitpick over problematic details -- and all too easy to play the role of amateur profiler, convincing yourself that you have the ability to distinguish truth from lies or sincerity from acting."

Isn't that exactly what you and Ms D are doing? Don't pretend like you don't have confirmation bias of your own!

While admittedly it's never possible to be sure one hasn't succumbed to confirmation bias, the method I adopted was designed as a means of getting around this problem by focusing on the undisputed facts of the case and clear logical inferences based on those facts.

That Patsy made the 911 call is a fact. That John told her to make that call is NOT a fact. To conclude that Patsy would not have made that call if she were involved in the staging of a kidnapping is a clear logical inference. To insist that her call was part of a plan to deceive is not a logical inference, but an assumption.

Could my logic be flawed? Certainly. But I don't see confirmation bias entering into such a process, no.

As far as certain details of the case are concerned, I will acknowledge that confirmation bias might have entered into my interpretations, yes. Since I feel sure of Patsy's innocence, that certainty does tend to influence my interpretation of her actions and her words. But my interpretations of such details are backed up by the fundamental logic of the case, which has nothing to do with confirmation bias as far as I can tell.

For example, when I insist that wearing the same outfit the next day is a sign of innocence rather than guilt, to me that's a logical inference, because it's not logical to conclude that Patsy would not have showered and changed if she'd been up all night sexually assaulting and strangling her daughter. If you disagree, you can feel free to call that confirmation bias, but sorry I can't agree.

As I see it, my interpretation of this case is based on logic, not assumptions, not confirmation bias. But maybe it would be easier to deal with this issue if you would provide a specific example of what you consider confirmation bias on my part.

I appreciate your willingness to challenge your own assumptions. I don't see any qualitative difference between what you're labeling "logical inference" and what you're labeling "assumption" other than whether it support your thesis or not. Patsy wearing the same clothes is both a sign of innocence and a sign of guilt depending on the assumptions made by the person assessing that observation -- in other words confirmation bias. It's just a detail that may or may not be relevant. As far as other examples of confirmation bias, I think the "gaslighting" hypothesis for Patsy corroborating the broken window and John telling her to call 911 is perhaps the most obvious one. These two details really don't fit in any logical way. That and the whole "he partially staged the basement, but not in a convincing enough way" thing...

I don't think you understand what confirmation bias is. As I understand it, c.b. is a tendency to pay attention to only those pieces of evidence that tend to confirm one's own theory and ignore any evidence or any other interpretations that might contradict it. So when we see, for example in Steve Thomas's book, the claim that Patsy must have been up all night because she was wearing the same outfit, that is confirmation bias, because no other possibility is considered. When I discuss this matter I take both possibilities into consideration and argue that one males more sense than the other. That's NOT confirmation bias, because all sides of the issue have been considered.

Same with the "gaslighting" hypothesis, which is the result of a logical analysis of the facts in which all possibilities are considered. When someone simply concludes that Patsy must have been collaborating with John on the basis of her story about cleaning up the glass, without considering all the other evidence supporting her innocence, THAT is confirmation bias.

Again when I conclude that John must have needed to unstage at the basement window because his original plan had been foiled by Patsy's call, that is NOT c.b., because it's based on a careful analysis of ALL the facts. However, when someone insists that this theory makes no sense and refuses to consider any other possibility, THAT is c.b.

Which is not to say that I must therefore always be right. That's another matter. But I do believe I've made an effort to avoid c.b. by considering all the evidence, all the facts and all points of view. That's a big part of what this blog is all about - a means of gathering as much evidence as possible and becoming acquainted with a variety of viewpoints.

Confirmation bias is also *interpreting* evidence in a way that confirms pre-existing beliefs. For example, gaslighting makes more sense to you than collusion not because there is any evidence of gaslighting but because you already believe that Patsy had nothing to do with it. Concluding that John must have needed to unstage the basement window preassumes that he had some reason to partially stage it in a way that he at the same time didn't think was convincing. What reason could that possibly be? A simpler explanation that fits the facts is that the broken window had nothing to do with the crime.

I think you posed the million dollar question earlier Doc, which is why people cannot consider John as the number 1 suspect (or words to that effect). I think we need to look inside ourselves as to why that is. Everyone has had a theory, why Patsy was wearing the same clothes, why was Burke pretending to be asleep, why did his parents say he wasn't downstairs during the 911 call, why this why that but can we answer why we ruled him out so early on and continue to do so? Did the evidence so blatantly point to others that John had to be eliminated?

And what of the experts John hired for their defense should they ever need one - his own handwriting experts, their own polygraph administrators, and their own investigators. What if his investigators had found evidence pointing to their own clients? Would (and was?) that evidence suppressed?

John and Company then launched a media campaign to sway public opinion. Didn't his own PR person resign?

Gumshoe - Burke was not asleep. He said he was lying there terrified, waiting for his dad to come in an explain things to him. So if he has said he was asleep somewhere else he has contradicted himself.

But again, why is it so impossible to believe that John committed this crime and John alone. Because Patsy had on the same outfit?

Inq, it's not that I cannot accept John as the killer, I just have more difficulty buying into that scenario than some of the others. Mainly, that he was sexually abusing his daughter and everything else about Patsy. I just don't see how when we look at everything in totality, that we can conclude that Patsy knew absolutely nothing and was "gaslighted" by John.

The handwriting, in my opinion, looks far more like Patsy's than it does John's. I see no way that John could have impersonated Patsy's handwriting. That would have taken him HOURS to do for a letter that long. Additionally, Patsy started changing the way she wrote in the subsequent months. Also, the whole window story still makes no sense to me at all why he would stage a break-in, then unstage it by cleaning up the glass. Then, my biggest hurdle to get over, is how Patsy would agree to lie about the window despite it being the biggest piece of evidence pointing towards a home invasion. And as I've said before, Patsy would have figured this all out at some point.

It comes down to probability for me. Is there a higher probability that a young child smashed his sister over the head with something during an argument or would a successful CEO father, who had absolutely no history of abuse himself by his parents, start molesting his six year old daughter?

MissB, I think you're selling the non JDI believers very short by only pointing to Patsy wearing the same clothes. That's only one circumstance in a pile of others.

Gumshoe, I understand perfectly how you feel. Ever since John was "ruled out" very early in 1997,just about everyone with sense enough to reject the intruder theory has focused on Patsy, and over the years an extensive folklore developed regarding her actions, her words, her manner and, of course, her handwriting.

So, once I concluded, through logical analysis of the facts, that Patsy could not have been involved, I was painfully aware that I was going to have my work cut out for me. NOT because there was even a shred of evidence consistent with her involvement, but because of the huge amount of dubious and even erroneous thinking that had accumulated around her.

HER pad, HER pen, HER paintbrush. "What does that tell you?" Thinking on that level, literally guilt by association. Logically one would wonder why, if she committed this horrible crime, she would have wanted to use anything directly associated with her? But logic was tossed to the winds, because ANYTHING that might make her look suspicious was, of course, proof positive of her involvement.

Much of the Patsy myth was fed by Steve Thomas, who convinced himself he'd solved the case and was determined to find anything and everything that might make Patsy look suspicious, from the parting of her fingers to sneak a peek at a policeman to the fact that she was wearing the same outfit the following day, and on from there.

You mention the "fact" that she changed her handwriting after the murder. But as I've demonstrated that is simply not true. It's part of the myth, included in Thomas's book and now widely accepted as fact by just about everyone following the case. Thomas alleged that Patsy stopped using manuscript "a," but a cursory examination of the samples she provided to the authorities totally contradicts that allegation. She used several manuscript "a"s in these documents. Thomas was seeing what he wanted to see and this is the theme we find over and over again when people find it so hard to see Patsy as either a murderess or an accomplice.

As for the handwriting, once again we see the development of a huge and pervasive myth, once again based on confirmation bias and wishful thinking. If John was ruled out and there was no intruder, then "obviously" Patsy must have written the note. So off to the races to find all sorts of "matches" between her writing and that in the note. The most experienced professionals hired by LE saw little evidence she wrote it, though they could not rule her out. The incompetents hired by Darnay Hoffman looked for anything they could find that would nail her, including her use of exclamation points, indentations, the fact that in one of her "X"s one stroke was lower than the other, that sort of nonsense. In fact her writing looks nothing like the note, as I've demonstrated more than once. And the "experts" who concluded she wrote it are frauds, as I've also demonstrated more than once.

I've had my work cut out for me because it's been necessary to deal with each and every assumption that's been raised so many times in the media, the Internet, books, etc. And all the "experts" who claim they can detect deception simply by analyzing someone's speech patterns. If it were that simple there'd no longer be a need for jury trials, no? But no matter, Patsy has become fair game, so whatever you can throw at her is going to stick, in the minds of those who've convinced themselves in advance.

When I felt sure I'd solved this crime, I realized very well that there was this huge thicket of assumptions, misinformation, and dubious "expertise" I was going to have to cut through in order to get my points across. I think I've accomplished that Herculean task, but my arguments are strewn out all over this blog, and also in my book, and as a result I keep seeing the same assumptions cropping up time and again, and I've been growing weary of continually dealing over and over with the same issues. Issues that as far as I'm concerned, were settled some time ago on this very blog.

Sorry to hit you with all this, Gumshoe. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion and I doubt that anything I say will change your mind. Actually I'm surprised that anyone agrees with me, because the case I've been making is so far from obvious and goes so completely against the grain.

But now the trend has shifted to Burke because there are reasons to find Patsy as murderer of her child nonsensical. So the theories have combined to include both parents - one doing one thing - writing the note, perhaps the father dictating passages from movies to her so that it sounds like a male with an interest in kidnap-for-ransom movies, and the other parent "finishing her off", all to cover for an abnormal little boy. It's a family affair. Where are the documentaries, Lifetime movies, A&E specials, and ID Discoveries that show the many lies and coverups and masterminding of the investigation he orchestrated? None. How about a book or two indicating that he and he alone murdered his daughter. None. So yes, it's an uphill battle Doc just to get a few people to agree with you, but where it counts - re-opening the investigation with John Ramsey as suspect number 1, all is quiet on that western front.

"It comes down to probability for me. Is there a higher probability that a young child smashed his sister over the head with something during an argument or would a successful CEO father, who had absolutely no history of abuse himself by his parents, start molesting his six year old daughter?"

Let me ask you this, Gumshoe: what do you think the "probability" is that two parents (one of them a "successful CEO with no history of abuse", by your own admission) would strangle their child to death upon discovering their son has whacked her in the head? Seeing as you feel this is a more common occurrence than sexual abuse, you will have no problem naming many similar instances in your next post, and we can perhaps compare statistics. You have trouble believing a "stand up guy" like John Ramsey would molest his daughter, yet you have no problem believing this same, decent, family man would strangle his daughter to death in order to divert attention away from his son.....please explain how that works?

"So yes, it's an uphill battle Doc just to get a few people to agree with you, but where it counts - re-opening the investigation with John Ramsey as suspect number 1, all is quiet on that western front."

Yes, Inquistive. And let us hope the Grand Jury's True-Bill Indictment, now in the hands of Stan Garrett, doesn't suffer the same historical fate The Treaty of Versailles suffered in the hands of Neville Chamberlain.

Doc, I read your blog every day, but rarely comment. I've decided to put my two cents worth in on the subject of Patsy's clothes on the morning of the 26th. As a woman, I have sometimes worn a special outfit two days in a row (but on regular days, with regular clothes I never do). Patsy wore a special holiday sweater for just a few hours at the Fleet's party. It wasn't "dirty". She said that she draped those clothes over the tub when she took them off (so they wouldn't wrinkle, I'm sure). She thought she was going to get on a plane and fly to Michigan (and NOT see anyone from the previous night's party). That's kind of a woman thing. If you are going to wear a special outfit twice, it can't be when you'll see the same people! So I guess my point is this: I can't believe how many people use the "same clothes" argument to try and prove Patsy's guilt. You're right, Doc. It's just confirmation bias.

I completely agree! If I wear a clean outfit late in the day and I haven't spilled anything on it, I would certainly wear it the next day, as long as I won't be seeing the same people as the night before.

I swear I was about to post the same comment! Patsy had a ton to do to get everyone up and out of the house to ride in an airplane unseen yet greeted on the other end by relatives still in festive mode. My mother did things like that, and in many ways, Patsy reminds me of my mother!

I also don't think Burke would have the wherewithal to engage in "inappropriate sexual behavior". Just knowing what I do from my own son and my grandson at age 9 almost 10 (and boys mature more slowly than girls) boys that age are more interested in toys, playing with toys with other boys, and touching one's sister inappropriately is something akin to revulsion versus curiosity.

Also consider that if Burke had had anything whatsoever to do with "it" - the crime - he would not have been put in an environment such as the home of a close friend where he could have easily been gotten to, by a rogue police officer, the press, or the house guest and children residing under the White's roof. Not just his part in it, but what either parent might have done "for him" next.

Inq, you're making the same mistake that so many others make; comparing normal kids to Burke. Just because your kids are normal and might not have interest in girls, doesn't mean others don't.

You're also playing both sides of the fence with that comparison because using the same logic would prove that John, by all accounts an unbelievably stand-up man, would want to sexually abuse his own six year old daughter.

Apparently the boys at my elementary school were quite sexually advanced for their ages. This was before internet and cable tv but of course there were still magazines. I was in kindergarten when a boy took a liking to me and planted a kiss on my lips in the hallway. I think I was in 3rd grade when another gave me a note on the playground with some song lyrics from Bad Company. There were always a few boys that tried to look up skirts or dresses of the girls and this was all before puberty hit either gender. When grown, some of my friends that had very young sons had to teach them not to play with themselves in public, the little guys were quite proud of their little fellas, and none had bathroom issues or molestation suspicions.

Inq, something else you eluded to above is John's decision to hire PI's and FBI profilers. If we are to believe that John did this, that has got to be the gutsiest move made in history. An incestuous, murdering father would never hire all of those experts. But since him and Patsy did not "kill" JBR, then it makes sense. I think the parents were willing to be crucified in the media for Burke.

John didn't hire them. They were hired by his lawyers. Which means that anything any of them learned would be protected by lawyer-client privilege. If they'd found anything that might make John look suspicious they'd be bound by law to keep it to themselves.

I just came back from a long trip to my homeland in South America and am trying to catch up on newer posts and comments.To my surprise, I see a lot of changes. Inquisitive is now in JDI camp and there is a new level of conversation and debate among all participants. Doc has a new blog also! Very interesting, indeed...And I'm excited to be back! I love this post, so well presented. It's logic, common sense and facts as explained by Doc that have led me to believe JDI. But oh boy...I'm so intrigued by Patsy's behavior. What intrigues me the most is her reaction when she was told by Boulder Police that there were signs of prior sexual abuse. (I'm a mother, I know I would have jumped on my chair.)She said she was in shock, she said she was surprised but her body language was not following what she said she was feeling.That, obviously, doesn't mean too much in a the sea of evidence that this case has but it has always stood out for me...and even though I'm a firm believer in John's sole responsibility, from time to time I feel in my stomach that we are still very far from the truth of what really happened. Marcela Szy

Burke may have struck his sister, but why would John, Patsy (or the two of them) then choose to strangle her to death instead of trying to save her life? As far as your comment about Patsy "already knowing".....like Inq, I'm confused also, as you've been pretty vocal in saying you don't believe she had been sexually abused......have you changed your stance on that issue? If so, you must surely concede that John becomes a more likely suspect?

Truth be told, the sexual abuse confuses me. Mainly because it doesn't seem to be conclusive among all the experts. I know many of you on here will point to all the experts that say there was prior sexual abuse but there are also a number of experts who disagree. Like many aspects of this case, I do not know who to believe.

If there was sexual abuse, I cannot rule out Burke, which would explain that Patsy already knew and created the motive for the cover-up.

Is there a particular reason you're more inclined to believe a nine year old boy was sexually abusing his sister as opposed to an adult male - the very one whose shirt fibers were found in the victim's crotch?

I didn't say there was, John I. I asked Gumshoe why she believes Burke may have been abusing his sister.While it is certainly not a fact that John was abusing his daughter, it is a fact that John's shirt fiber was found in JB's crotch, so that is something to consider. His shirt fibers elsewhere on her body can easily be accounted for, but when we consider that someone penetrated her vagina that night, and it was *his* clothing fibers that were found in her genital region, it certainly makes him a more plausible suspect than Burke.

You state "John's shirt fiber was found in JB's crotch" as if it's a fact. First the fibers were blue and cotton then they somehow became black and wool. The only reference I could find to any fiber match to John's shirt was a claim made in a police interrogation of Patsy. Police lie about evidence in interrogations all the time in order to try to get people to confess.

The claim regarding John's shirt fibers was also made when John was being interviewed. And both Lin Wood and John went ballistic. Wood simply refused to allow the interviewer to continue and made a huge fuss about needing to see the report before John could answer any questions about those fibers.

And by the way, the interviewer never accused John of anything or implicated anything. He was hoping to learn whether or not John's shirt might have been in the same load of laundry as the panties, but he was never allowed to continue.

I see no reason to assume he was lying about the fiber match. This was NOT a confrontational grilling but a very mild mannered interview. Can you think of anything else the interviewers might have lied about? I can't.

"If there was sexual abuse, I cannot rule out Burke, which would explain that Patsy already knew and created the motive for the cover-up."

You do realize this makes no sense, don't you Gumshoe? Your inability to rule out Burke explains nothing regarding what Patsy knew about or how she acted upon, anything, let alone something so significant as her son killing her daughter! Insistence that solving this case is contingent upon establishing motive is the tragic flaw in all non-JDI theories. What if I told you John murdered JonBenet becauselate that night she walked downstairs and caught her father naked and having phone sex with a cord tied around his neck? How does that stack up against Burke killing her by accident in terms of "following the evidence to see where it leads?"

I should have added that my son was very resentful that he was the center of attention before his sister came along then I had to tend to the needs of an infant, that they fought from the time she could stand and talk, to not having a good relationship now. Fights that I had break up - but he knew he couldn't hit her and he didn't. But what conditions in the Ramsey household do you think would have taken sibling rivalry to a whole different extreme - hurtful sexual exploration, an angry head blow and strangling the life out of her? Or do you think J did part of it and Patsy the rest?

Before we go further as to why John in your opinion would not have been molesting his daughter, just concentrate on Burke. What, either in the videotape with the social worker, or what others have said about him, has you think he could be abnormal? To the point of murder.

I would also like to share this other observation. Let me first explain the background. Where I come from, when someone passes away, you go to a "wake" at a funeral parlor, where the body is viewed, you get to see the family, console them, etc. This kind of places are open to the public and the wake lasts for 24 hs or less. The funeral takes place after this event the following day. The fact is that no wake can last more than 24 hs after the person deceased because of decomposition odor. I have been to several wakes from relatives and friends and know for a fact that odor sets in when you are approaching the 24 hs after the death. Maybe a little bit sooner if it's summer time. According to LA's report, when the body was found on Dec 26 at about 1 pm, decomposition odor was starting to set in, meaning that 24 hs have passed since death. I have never read anything about this on the JBR's case but it's factual that no odor could have been perceived if JBR had died the night before. For that smell to be perceived she needed to be dead for at least 24 hs, which could take the moment of her killing to the afternoon of December 25th. We have always believed that the murder took place between 10 pm and midnight on Christmas Day but this fact about the odor detective Arndt felt is significant as to give a time frame to the murder. Like I said, the body starts to decompose after 24 hs, not before. In the wakes that I mentioned,the funeral house staff will seal the coffin after 24 hs waking it for that reason.

If she was killed on the afternoon of the 25th, this would mean she did not attend the White's xmas party, and I'm sure LE thoroughly investigated guests at the party in regards to what she was wearing, her demeanor etc. so I'm guessing it's a foregone conclusion she attended. I believe the coroner noted the time of death to be anywhere between 10 p.m on the 25th - 5 a.m on the 26th, if I recall correctly. Things like body temperature, rigor mortis, entomology, the stage of decomposition, the digestion process etc. factor into determining the time of death, therefore I don't think the coroner could possibly have been as much five or six hours out in his estimation, could he?

I have always wondered why the pictures from that party at the Whites were never released. Also, I find it very intriguing that they couldn't remember exactly what happened after they left the Whites, regarding time, who stayed in the car when they stopped at the Stines, who was sleeping etc when they were going back home, what time they got home and regarding specifically how Jonbenet arrived home, there's different accounts, she was " zonked ", she went upstairs by herself etc...Since all this happened before the murder, I found it very suspicious that they can't remember details. It's known that they went to the party that afternoon but I don't believe that they can't remember anythng that happened afterwards. What could they be possibly hiding from that particular time they were coming back home?About the coroner, it's my understanding he didn't take the sample for the vitreous humor analysis nor he measured the rectal temperature to establish the approximate time of death. If odor was perceived, then time of death must have been closer to 10 pm on the 25th than 5 am on the 26th.

I tend to agree with you, Marcela. It's always bothered me that the Ramseys hazy memories begin immediately after they left the Whites. The ride home is very vague. Who went in when presents were dropped off and who stayed in the car seems to be an issue and I don't know why that is. Was JB "zonked" or did she walk up the stairs to bed? Did John read to her or didn't he? Was she wearing the red turtle neck Patsy wanted her to wear, as was initially claimed, or was she wearing the sweater with the star that JB demanded to wear to the party - the one she was found in? The last present they were going to deliver - after visiting the Stines house - didn't get delivered. Did something occur at the Stine's residence? That theirs was the last house they visited before everything became a "blur" in their memories, and that it was their home they moved into not too long after the murder raises a lot of questions for me. But I don't know what any of it means.....if it means anything at all.

Your facts are all wrong. Corpses are embalmed days in advance of wakes. The process delays decomposition and its associated odors. In the absence of intervention, corpses can exude a bad odor well before twenty four hours, sometimes faster in children. They are not a function of the time it takes rigor mortis to set in.

Here we have a little something called embalming. There is a viewing, but the body has already been embalmed. Hi Marcela, welcome back!

I think it very possible that she was not "zonked" out in the car, that she was not carried in and put to bed already asleep. John said to Officer French that he read to her. Then he changed his story on that account. Might something have happened to her whilst he was doing his reading to her? His melatonin story was also likely a fabrication. As was his climbing into the window one summer sans suit. You have to ask yourself, who is this guy really protecting - his son, or himself.

But back to Burke - Burke does appear socially awkward, at times candid, other times nonchalant and non-caring. But is that a sign of abnormal behavior? If describing to the social worker what he thinks happened to his sister seemed abnormal, or his smile at the funeral and later on Dr. Phil seems abnormal, then what does a psychopath murdering child and sexual deviant age 9 look like?

The whole point of my comment was that the odor sets in around 24 hs after death and that I know that because in SA people are not embalmed, ever. In the US, people are not very aware of that when the go to a funeral because the body is prior subject to a process that avoid decomposition. It's curious that LA felt that odor.

I don't know about South Africans, diamondlil. I speak for South Americans. Embalming is very rare. People, are usually waked and buried within the 24 hs after they died. I have been to many funerals like this and Doc is right, decomposition odor varies from case to case, depending also on the cause of death. If the person was sick for a long time, etc. odor will set in sooner. Ms D is right also. The wine cellar was a humid place. it could have accelerated the process.Either way, exact time of death could not be established and I find it at least curious that the last report of JBR being "awake" was at the Whites. Because, after that, no one in the family seems to remember what she did.

I am almost done reading a book written by Steve Thomas on the case that has been out for years. He was pretty sure the parents had something to do with it. I am on the fence, but it seems the child may have been abused for sometime before her death. She went to the ER 18 times in one year that is a sure sign. There was chronic vaginal abuse prior to her death. So something sounds fishy. I think the ransom letter signed S.B.T.C. stands for "so bring the cash", I just can't understand why someone would come in take the child, feed her while in the home, assault her, torture her, all while the family was sleeping. They seemed not to care if they were caught or not. The only thing I could think of is if it were an outside job was the child letting someone in that told her they would come see her that night to give her a special gift. Could have tossed stones to wake her up or told her to pretend to be a sleep and then meet them at a certain door. Something happened to this child and I hope they one day will figure it all out.

She never went to Emergency 18 times in a year, I'm not sure where you got such erroneous information from, can you please cite your source? She saw her pediatrician something like 27 times over the course of three years, often times for regular childhood ailments. I agree that she'd been sexually abused but she'd never been brought to the Emergency room, as far as I know (perhaps they took her when Burke hit her in the eye with a golf club) let alone 18 times in 12 months!

"I think the ransom letter signed S.B.T.C. stands for "so bring the cash""

Why would the Ramseys (John or Patsy alone, or both of them working as a team) use an acronym for those words? Why wouldn't they just say "Bring the cash"?! SBTC could stand for absolutely anything - the possibilities are infinite - or it might stand for nothing at all and the writer simply used an acronym because most of the "foreign factions" he'd heard of in movies etc. used them and SBTC were the first four letters that came to his mind.

"The only thing I could think of is if it were an outside job was the child letting someone in that told her they would come see her that night to give her a special gift. Could have tossed stones to wake her up or told her to pretend to be a sleep and then meet them at a certain door."

Why would they then risk being caught by hanging around long enough to write the "War and Peace" of ransom notes (even though they weren't planning a kidnapping, but a sexual assault instead) and sit around twiddling their thumbs for 45 mins - 2 hours between the head blow and the strangulation? They'd do the deed and get the hell out of there as fast as possible, I would imagine.

Patsy could have walked in on John molesting the child and went off, could have been the reason she wore the same clothes she had on the night before at the party, she was up all night. If she turned the father in to the police she would lose a husband at a time she needed health insurance due to her cancer and money. Burke would also lose a father and it would put shame on the Ramsey family. Something happened that caused them to be hush, hush, the both of them. Some people say Burke is weird, well he also may have been a victim of his father and too a shamed to speak of it like most abused kids.

Any person that is not the main wage earner can get COBRA, when divorcing and can ask that the employed spouse pay for that coverage for a set amount of years. Also maintenance (alimony) and child support. Patsy could have had a high powered divorce attorney see to it that her health care was covered. She chose to remain til death they did part.

Tiffany: Have you read the entirety of Doc's book? It sounds like you have an excellent grasp of all the dichotomies in this case. Your wings are well seasoned for a bird's eye view, and what better birds eyes are there than those of an eagle? ( Doc, if you need my address to remit a portion of your royalties, let me know!)

This case requires FIRST presuming each individual suspect guilty of the crime, THEN looking backwards at the facts and evidence to determine a) if they fit and if so b) how well. The presumption of guilt while investigating suspects in a crime does not subvert the presumption of innocence those suspects are entitled to receive when later standing trial for them. Illegal actions taken by investigators and/or prosecutors are the proximate cause of mistrials, not presumptions of guilt. Recent crimes perpetrated on United States citizens by foreigner visitors serve as a reminder that presumption of innocence can be as over-zealous and damaging a creed as presumption of guilt can be, and that just because it is better that several guilty men go free than that one innocent man be falsely imprisoned, doesn't mean there is not, nevertheless, a balance between the two that must be struck.

A related yet interesting topic for discussion may be as to why there exist no "standards" for presuming innocence corresponding to "standards" (e.g. beyond a reasonable doubt) for proving guilt? Should there be? If not, why not, and if so, why and what would they be?

"This film, however, promises to be unique, blending fact, memory and legend to create a 'documentary hybrid' not just about the death of the six-year old pageant queen, but, according to Netflix, one that examines how....etc."

This is confusing. John told Officer French he read to both kids before bed. Before he changed that story. He also says he stayed up late to help Burke put together a complicated toy that had "ramps" etc. How was he reading to the kids and putting together the toy at the same time. And if Burke was already staying up later with John putting together the toy (and before John takes his melatonin around 10:15 p.m.) then why would he then "sneak" back up. When was the sneaking - after he was walked up to bed and after putting the toy together with John? And after he was read to? Or All this before 10:15? If John walked him back up to bed how can he claim to be asleep, or at least lights out by 10:45 p.m.? BURKE'S timeline makes no sense.

He also said in a police interview that JB had gotten a bike for Christmas - she was outside riding it, and had fallen over, etc. No mention of him getting a bike or riding one at that time. You would think if he got a new bike he would be outside going for a test ride. But on Dr. Phil when Phil asks him to recall Christmas morning he said they both got bikes. Not true.

Doc should start a thread on "Burkisms." But what I believe Burke to be guilty of is trying, 20 years later, to help his father. He told the media he wanted to do the Dr. Phil show to honor his sister but also to allow his father to live out his last years in peace. Hence the changing stories, adding to them, embellishing them, and essentially "helping" his father. Protecting him possibly.

Not to mention why, after putting the toy together, John needed to use a flashlight to walk Burke back up the stairs - the very same flashlight John had denied knowledge of for TWENTY years - when hall lights would have worked just as well! Unless there's a blackout, why would one use a flashlight inside the house? Patsy was still awake, packing, so they were in no danger of waking her up - at any rate, her bedroom is on another floor, so there'd be no chance of that even if she was sleeping. JB had her own bedroom, and she was "zonked" - she didn't even wake up when her father carried her upstairs and her mother changed for bed - so I'm sure a hall light wouldn't have interrupted her deep slumber. So what exactly was John's excuse - twenty years after the fact - for needing the flashlight merely to walk his son back to bed in a house full of functional lights? Or, like most of John's lies, no one bothers to figure out why he can't ever seem to manage to give the same version of events twice because he was "ruled out"?

I think the flashlight lie you speak of here MsD would point to Burke being involved? If we are to believe that John snuck his daughter down to the basement to molest and kill her, why would he need a flashlight to do so? To me, it makes more sense a child used the flashlight to sneak down there, and then John was left to figuring out how to explain it 20 years later.

Keep in mind, Patsy could never give one single straightforward answer to any question I've heard. Every interview I've watched of her and read about was cringe worthy that she couldn't give a straight answer to anything?

Interviewer: Patsy, is the sky blue?Patsy: Well, I guess, um, so, I would think so but can't really remember, you know?

Yes, it was obvious to me as well. I knew what you were saying I just didn't think Gumshoe was.

I get more and more angry when I read about all of the subterfuge John perpetrated, I think he was willing to have other people looked at in his family as long as they didn't look hard at him. His own handwriting "experts" cleared him immediately but hey, not Patsy, not entirely. 20 years later Burke can admit sneaking downstairs (which I don't believe he did) and suggest that both he and John handled the flashlight - or was that John's idea, there have been so many lies I cannot sift through all of them. And so I get very frustrated and I know you do too.

Ms D, it's obvious why John would not want to turn on the lights but he would not need a flashlight to navigate through his own house. My house at night is pitch black. If I wanted to do something inappropriate, I would not need a flashlight. He could easily find his way into JBR's room.

Lastly, I'd like for someone to explain to me why he would risk his entire plan by hoping that Patsy doesn't call police. That makes absolutely zero sense. Some of you have even suggested that he would have killed Patsy if she caught him but I'd argue that her calling the police before his staging was complete was equally detrimental to him.

I don't think he was hoping she would not call the police. I believe he was confident the note would do the work to convince her not to. And you just nailed it. Calling 911 was detrimental and really foiled JR's plan, ergo she was not part of it.

I agree with Gumshoe. Since the entire plan that has been fashioned for JR absolutely *depends* on PR not calling the police, "hope" seems to be rather insufficient. I could just as easily say "John told Patsy to call 911, ergo he couldn't have been planning to dump the body or do any staging later"

"Ms D, it's obvious why John would not want to turn on the lights but he would not need a flashlight to navigate through his own house. My house at night is pitch black. If I wanted to do something inappropriate, I would not need a flashlight. He could easily find his way into JBR's room."

Firstly, is your home a rambling, three story mansion? Do you have to walk down a flight of stairs to reach your child's bedroom? If so, do you think you could confidently walk down the stairs in pitch darkness without missing a step and subsequently go tumbling down the stairs, waking everyone up (not to mention possibly breaking a bone or two)? I'm pretty sure-footed, but there is no way I'd risk walking down a spiral staircase (was the staircase from John and Patsy's room a spiral staircase? I can't remember. I know the one from the second floor to the first floor, where the ransom note was found, certainly was) in pitch darkness, especially if the last thing I want to do is create a ruckus! Secondly, I don't believe John molested J in her bedroom, I believe he took her down to the basement. So he would have required a flashlight to get his daughter down two flights of stairs, and through the labyrinthine lower level.

This is a silly argument - I think it's rather clear that John would require a flashlight to navigate his way through the house if turning on lights wasn't an option. Burke, on the other hand, wouldn't need to....his parents slept on the floor above him and wouldn't have known if he'd turned on a downstairs light.

That should read JB - "I don't believe John molested JB in her bedroom".....I'm still having trouble with my "B" key! I went back and fixed the words "edroom", "urke" and "asement" but missed that one! :D

They were asked many times whose decision it was to call 911.They could never offer the same version, there's one or two in the interviews and another one in their book. Why? Simple. She called the police after struggling long and hard, even going psycho according to Burke's description of his mother's state that morning. He could not stop her, she ran downstairs and grabbed the phone. But, they cannot say that...obviously.

What's silly is that you think people navigate their own home with a flashlight. There is no reason whatsoever for John to have needed a flashlight. It would not be weird or unusual to have a light or two on in the house. That isn't exactly going to blow his cover to a wife sleeping behind closed doors up on the third floor. I'm amazed that you think so.

That being said, Ms D, let's just agree to disagree. You are clearly set on your theory and you don't seem willing to budge.

That still doesn't change my opinion. Do we know every single light in the house was off? I'm sure most of us can agree that it's very common to have a light or two on in the house at night at any given point for a variety of reasons.

The house was a maze. I don't think a light or two would have made any difference. I really believe John used the flashlight to guide JonBenet downstairs and to the basement. He probably didn't need it, like you said, but it wasn't for him, it was to help her walk in the dark. Turning lights on and off could have been seen by a neighbor in the time frame he would eventually say they were sleeping.

Gumshoe...you act like WE are the ones putting a flashlight in Johns hands! Both Burke AND John did when talking to Dr. Phil. And WE didn't surmise it was weapon used on JBR skull, LE did based on compelling evidenced revealed in the autopsy!

Yes and it really was from when they left the Whites, because he isn't even sure who, other than Patsy, went inside the Stine's when she delivered their gift to them. He thinks he, Burke and JB stayed in the car, but then no, Burke went inside because Doug was Burke's good friend, so he and JB stayed in the car. On a cold night I would guess. Was she "zonked" then? Has anyone asked the Stine's who came into their house that night? It would take years for a prosecutor to put together a case against John just trying to corroborate the stories - it would be daunting.

I recently began reading the 3rd book of "The Day After Christmas" which states that it will discuss Doug Stine at some point. I haven't reached that part yet, but I'll let you know if they have anything interesting to say when I do.

I'm considering paying for The second book "Sequin Star" - $9.99, cannot go through amazon, must use Paypal. But I'm glad you are reading "The Day After Christmas" book 3, as I thought he would lay out the Doug Stine connection in book 1, so I can skip that one.

So... their theory is that Doug Stine and Burke were playing with JB in the basement, tied a cord around her neck like her American Girl doll. They feel that the details began to get murky and confusing from the time they headed to the Stines. They spend a lot of time on the questioning about the pictures found on their camera and pictures of JB found in the laundry room. Also there were 2 calls to Gary Merriman of Access Graphics that morning...and speculation about Lockheed Martin's involvement and money. Makes my head spin. Yeah, now I want to read Sequin Star as well.

hello Mrs. B. I purchased Sequin Star - the second one - and am on page 99 out of 400 some pages. They said they have amended Craven Silence from accident to intentional so I wouldn't read those if there is a newer account. As you probably know the authors use other murders for comparison so I find it really interesting and compelling reading. Mostly they are doing a really decent job of cutting through the crap that was John's statements. I wrote down several passages thinking I might pass them on here, but I think it better if people just purchase the book (mine was in pdf file format) and start reading for themselves. And I will withhold any and all opinions. Or - you can go first :)

John doesn't care if we know that he lies. He knows how many bikes were there that Christmas, right? He's weaving a novel, not a short story. If he ever gets charged with this crime, he would want the jury to be confused with all the conflicting details, many of which possibly mean nothing. Just my opinion, but it upsets me that no one in that family had the courage to stand up for JonBenet. Burke knows whether he got a bike or not. Burke knows if she walked up the stairs, or if the last time he saw her alive was in the car. Loyalty should be to the innocent, not the guilty. K

This is for Gumshoe - recently I read a comment from someone that paraphrased Steve Thomas saying that Patsy had more handwriting example styles than an entire 5th grade class. ha (I realized there are a few Steve Thomas haters here that refute anything he has ever said, but he didn't have a dead child in his basement nor do I see him as this terrible person either).

It's interesting to compare Lou Smit and Steve Thomas. As I see it, each became deluded, each in his own way, but for basically the same reason: lack of imagination.

Smit was fooled by the 911 call, because he could not see beyond "the Ramseys" as an inseparable unit. He very wisely realized that, if "the Ramseys" had been staging a kidnapping, "they" would never have called 911 while the body was still in the house. He actually said that in at least one interview, though I've lost the specific reference. As a result, he decided that "the Ramseys" must be innocent, and went off on a wild goose chase for that elusive intruder. It never seems to have occurred to him that John and Patsy were two very different individuals, who may NOT have been on the same page when that call was made.

Thomas was fooled by the decision to rule John out as writer of the note. Realizing that the intruder theory made no sense, he then zeroed in on Patsy as the only one who "logically" could have written it. It never occurred to him that the decision to rule John out made little sense, since the writing on the note was obviously disguised.

Neither Smit nor Thomas can be considered terrible people because each was sincerely convinced that he was following the evidence and being logical. But as so often happens when people become convinced, confirmation bias kicks in and as a result completely illogical and even dishonest arguments are presented to bolster flawed theories.

Thus Smit insisted on the basement window as the point of entry and exit, despite all the evidence that no one went through that window. And concocted an absurdly tendentious theory about a stun gun that gave him away as an advocate rather than an objective investigator.

And Thomas, among other things, accused Patsy of avoiding manuscript "a" after her daughter's murder -- a totally fallacious claim that any objective investigator would not have made after actually examining her exemplars.

Dishonesty? Maybe. I prefer "confirmation bias," one of the easiest traps for any investigator to fall into.

Doc, I feel like you sell Steve Thomas and the rest of the BPD a bit short. Do you not think they spent substantial time looking into John as a key suspect? I find it hard to believe that because a few handwriting experts pointed the finger at Patsy for writing the note, that they just brushed John aside.

What speaks volumes about Steve Thomas's attitude toward John can be seen in the passage in his book where he discusses the chronic vaginal injuries. After informing us that a panel of pediatric experts unanimously concluded that JonBenet had been sexually abused prior to the night of the murder, he completely ignores the possibility that her father might have been the abuser and focuses exclusively on Patsy.

"A much more likely cause of the injuries to my thinking was some sort of corporal punishment being meted out as discipline if JonBenét wet or soiled the bed." NO mention of John at all. Elsewhere he makes a point of giving John "a pass." Clearly John was off the radar as far as Thomas was concerned. And the only reason as far as I can tell was his being "ruled out." Once that fateful decision had been made the case went into a tailspin, as far as I can tell.

Many examples of Linda Arnt messing up. John brings the body up and places her on the wooden floor. Then Arnt moves her onto carpet under the tree - where hairs and fibers would have further contaminated her body. She also hands over a xerox copy of the ransom note to the Ramsey attorneys - made sure they got one right away.

5/25/2000 - The Ramsey's release the results of their lie-detector tests.

"John and Patsy Ramsey are telling the truth when they say they didn't kill their daughter, JonBenet, says a team of polygraph experts hired by their attorney."

"At a news conference in Atlanta on Wednesday, attorney L. Lin Wood announced that his clients had taken two separate sets of lie detector tests this spring. The first set was inconclusive, Wood said. But the second, administered by a new set of examiners, found both Ramsey's were truthful."

Inconclusive - two sets were administered - each? or collectively? First set inconclusive - which means what, they failed? They were deceptive? So try try again but with a new set of examiners and most likely a new set of questions - NOW they are found truthful.

John was obviously having problems in his first marriage. He handles them by having a long-term affair. When the investigation seeks to question the first Mrs. Ramsey John provides her with an attorney. I'm sure child support would have been over by then, but it's possible spousal support was continuing on, and John may have been paying for the older children's education. There would be a vested interest in the first Mrs. Ramsey to not reveal anything negative about her relationship with John.

It's obvious he behaved inappropriately in his marriage, and if Patsy had been turned off to him for various reasons - her health, emotional reasons, John must feel comforted again but this time not risk the tongues to wag in the small pond of Boulder where he was increasingly becoming a big fish.

When I see JBR in one of the pageants she participated in, or on one of her latest photo shootings posing in front of a camera, I can see a little girl behaving like a woman. Her moves and attitude speaks volumes to me as of what could have been going on in her life. It really makes me think that there was someone very close to her that was not only doing things to her but also speaking to her life, making her believe certain things were normal, good, natural when they were not. I see the effect of powerful words spoken unto her and that she was believing them and acting consequently. I have read many comments here that refer to the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that John molested his daughter and that it could have been Burke the one molesting his sister or any other person, like grandpa or John Andrew etc. But it was not molestation only, there's grooming, and that takes an adult person to be involved. Who can that person be? A teacher? An older brother? Her father? Who had proximity, better chances and opportunities to groom her? There cannot be any tangible evidence, but if you pay attention to her you will see the job of someone that influenced her big time.

If she was coached by anyone for those pageants, it was by her mother, Patsy. She was with her at every rehearsal and helped her with posing and gestures. I think PR was the one who had the most influence on that child. JR was barely home, between work and travel and when he was home, he wasn't to be disturbed.

I read that JR had a picture of his deceased daughter in his bathroom. I am not sure how true that is, BUT if so, isn't that a bit strange?

If I remember the layout of the Ramsey house correctly, there were two sets of staircases which led from the Ramsey's bedroom on the 3rd floor to JBR's and BR's bedrooms. The staircase closet to The Ramsey's bed led to Burke's room. The staircase furthest from their bed, led to JBR's room. That was always questionable to me. The youngest child's bedroom was the farthest away from the parents. What that means is that John would have to walk clear across their bedroom, and go down the steps which led to JBR's room. I am also sure the house wasn't pitch black. I am sure there must have been accent lights as the children were young and got up and slipped into each other's rooms at night. In a house THAT big, who wouldn't have night lights in the hallways?

EG, Another area of mystery is that JB's bedroom lamp was on when the officer arrived on the scene and had a look around. Patsy says it was dark when she looked in on JB, presumably we are led to believe she went to bed - to sleep - that night, light turned off. In the crime scene photos and video the lamp/light is on. And remember Patsy saying there was a dim light coming from the bathroom - she didn't want to turn on lights when she got her ready for bed. Patsy says she wanted to put her in the pink night clothes but couldn't find them (in the dark we're told). Find her exact words on acandyrose, I just remember that was what she said, that the room was dark. I'm leaning more toward her never going to bed that night which Marcela you were discussing earlier, that the crime happened sooner than what we thought. Soon after they arrived home perhaps. If that were so it would mess up the timeline the Ramsey's gave and call all of it into question.

EG - we know from interviews both parents distanced themselves from the flashlight, going so far as to say the ones in the home didn't work due to dead batteries. We know per reports one neighbor did recall seeing moving lights in the home towards the kitchen area. It would be interesting to know if LE ever did follow ups with neighbors recalling any other times they noticed moving lights in the home. Since the JDI'S think that only John would use the flashlight on the many times they think JB was being abused.

One recent thought on topix made an interesting possibility in regards to the three calls Patsy made to the pediatrician that she has no memory of. Over the years some have thought that it must be about JB, a few considered concerns about Burke. This poster considered it may have to do about Patsy herself, and wanting to get a prescription filled *for herself*. Since we know after the murder the pediatrician did give her sedatives.

Despite some who are anti-forums, I find several ideas made by those that post that make very valid points. And they are on top of the lawsuits and books.

Lil I thought the three calls in a row, in under an hour were strange for several reasons. 1) She called his office after hours. 2) First call made, second 22 min. later, called office again. 3) Third call 9 min. after the second one. I can understand impatience, no call back so keep calling - however if the operator or on call person or emergency personnel said they would ring him at home, why not wait for the call back.

However, if it's a true emergency and can't wait then you go to the ER - unless.....you want to hide the problem. ER versus well-known Pediatrician - ER sends a report if anything is suspicious.

Most suspicious of all, however, is Patsy doesn't recall making the calls. Of course it could have been anything, but it was to the Pediatrician so likely if it was for herself she would have called her own physician, or since it was after hours taken herself to get help.

I stay away from other forums Lil, but I am addicted to new books written about this case and I'm finding "Sequin Star" very compelling. I'm not interested in Intruder theories, or books suggesting Patsy did it (there's only one, right - Thomas?) but since Burke is in the limelight now I'm interested in that. I suggested long ago that John Ramsey has made a living of suing and there is nothing in this book that indicates otherwise. Burke is their "silver bullet." Also find it interesting that John, supposedly impoverished and living on his savings after being dumped by Lockheed Martin, had to sell his boats and planes. However that's plane singular. He still kept his other plane and burned up the skies flying back and forth here and there for months. This book has his flying itinerary.

I don't think PR or JR ever made it to bed that night. I am not buying the Melatonin, the reading awhile, etc. I think it's all a story concocted in the wee hours as they were covering up a crime.I find it difficult to believe that JR can't remember who went into the Stine house when they dropped off gifts. I find it hard to believe that he cant recall whether or not he read to the kids or not. Used the flash night or not, ate pineapple or not, had broken the window or not and on and on and on. They seemed to have developed amnesia that night and conveniently couldn't recall much. Nor did they want anyone else to recall much, because JR paid for everyone's lawyers which blocked questioning.

They did everything parents would NOT do when their child is missing/murdered. They weren't concerned about an intruder, they always knew what happened. Their only concern from that point on, was to be found not guilty and used their power, money and influence to accomplish that.

The parents distanced themselves from everything and everyone including LE. Just put yourself in PR's place. Your child is murdered. You would do everything and anything to get the police to stop looking at you so that they could concentrate on the real killer.

If PR was independent enough to call 911 after John didn't want her to, why would she continue to listen to him and not cooperate with police? It wasn't that she just went along with John, she WANTED to go along with John. He gets all the credit for being the mastermind. Well, Patsy was no slouch in that department either. JR wasn't the only narcissist in that family.

Inq - I think the poster was thinking along the lines of pill junkie. Needing a script and not wanting her regular doctor to know, may have met her quota on the meds, that sort of thing.

And while you don't wade out to the other online forums, like I posted before, one of the co-authors of the Jonbenet Trilogy series you've been reading on, has occasionally posted on topix (juror13), the female half of the duo that writes the books.

I don't comment on that site, but learn a lot, most have been with the case since the beginning. Many of the links I've posted here have come from their topix discussions.

EG - thank you! I agree, neither parent gets a pass from me. And they didn't from the grand jury. No matter what the paid spin doctors have put out for years - Hunter, Lacy, Wood, or the online folks that believe Patsy is channeling Patty Hearst or is some milque toast Stepford Wife. I call BS on that.

EG, as you should know by now, Patsy was a basket case for weeks after her child's murder. According to reports by friends she could hardly feed herself during that time. John was the one who took over, hiring the lawyers and the PR people, making the decision not to cooperate with the authorities, etc. By the time she came out of her fog, John had hired two well known handwriting experts, who concluded that he could not have written the ransom note. Given that conclusion, which has NEVER been contested by anyone in law enforcement or the media, it's not difficult to see how she would have been willing to go along with his decisions regarding the handling of the case.

It's therefore a HUGE mistake to continually refer to "the Ramseys" when assessing decisions that in all likelihood were made by John.

Yes, DocG. And, Patsy could have been easily convinced that any time she disagreed with John's account, the investigators would think that SHE was the one who was lying. She was in a vulnerable position after he was "eliminated". K

Hey, Doc. Just an FYI...your book is mentioned in the 3rd installment of "The Day After Christmas." Here's the text:

What’s interesting is over a ﬁfteen year pe-riod “jameson” has basically reviewed bookson JonBenét and only on JonBenét. That’snot to say “jameson” has reviewed everybook on JonBenét ever written. What’s miss-ing from her shortlist are reviews for StevenThomas’ book, Schiller’s book and the Ram-sey’s two books of course. There are also abunch of lesser known narratives — Apologiaand Apocrypha — including What The Pilot’sWife Knew, My Sister, My Love, RULED IN andothers.

New and Improved!

Currently available from the Kindle Store

Search This Blog

Things to Come

Things to Come

I just learned the other day of a new book on a case once labeled, "the crime of the century," but now almost completely forgotten. The title: Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? The author: James Kolar, a lead investigator during the reign of DA Mary Lacy, who famously exonerated John and Patsy Ramsey on the basis of a few miniscule fragments of so-called "intruder DNA." Thankfully, Kolar is not among those convinced by that very dubious "evidence." On the contrary, according to an excellent review,New Clues in JonBenet Ramsey Murder, recently published in the Daily Beast, Kolar's book presents strong evidence against the intruder theory -- implying, of course, that the murder was an inside job. I agree.

The publication of this new book, which I promptly ordered as soon as I found out about it, has prompted me, in spite of many misgivings, to once again plunge into the fray of this case, which for too many years, back in the late 90's and early 00's, as a regular poster on several Internet forums, occupied far too much of my attention and proved an endless source of frustration and annoyance, not only to me, but most of my fellow iSleuths. My problem was that I had solved it.